Informed Consent and the Research Process:
An ESRC Research Methods Programme project
Issues and Debates Page
The following comprises a summary of some of the issues and debates around informed
consent in (primarily qualitative) social research. These are presented here as an aid to
students, staff and researchers with a teaching or research interest in this area. They have
been produced by the ‘Informed Consent and the Research Process’ project team. They draw
on issues raised by participants in our research and from the wider literature.
1. Consent and covert research
There is considerable debate in the social science literature about the ethics of covert research
(i.e., research that is conducted among groups where some, or all, participants are not aware
they are taking part in a research study). This type of research is often observational but may
also include interviews within a broader ethnographic study. The arguments for covert
research are:
That some areas of social life can not be researched unless the research is covert –
once people are told they are taking part in a study their behaviour will change and it
then becomes impossible to conduct the research. Many studies in psychology follow
this model (although researchers may still gain consent for participation even though
participants may not be aware of the actual focus of the research). In some cases,
consent from ‘gatekeepers’ to conduct a covert study of a group may be sought.
That some areas of social life/organisation should be researched in that it is in the
interests of the general public to expose how such organisations or institutions operate
but the only way this can occur is through covert means.
That in some types of observational research it is not possible to obtain consent from
all participants in that a researcher does not know who will enter the area that s/he is
observing.
Proponents of covert methods have argued that covert research is not necessarily harmful to
participants and that so-called ‘open’ research often uses procedures based on various levels
of deceit. Roger Homan (1991) has noted that in ‘open’ research, researchers often:
Avoid full explanations of research to encourage participation
Persuade people to participate
Cultivate rapport so participants forget they are taking part in research
Use data that are generated outside of that for which the participant has consented
(e.g., a research diary).
Homan (1982) also argues that covert research may have more negative impact on the
researcher than on the participants.
The criticisms of covert research are:
That covert methods are generally not necessary and that the same objectives can be
achieved by open methods. It is argued that most groups will accept and agree to
collaborate with research once they know that they can trust the researcher involved.
That it violates the principle of informed consent and invades privacy for no good
reason.
That it is a betrayal of trust and that once participants realise that they have been used
for research purposes (as they are likely to do when the research is published) that
they will feel used and upset.
That it makes further research in that area or topic or with that particular group very
unlikely (i.e., it ‘spoils the field’)
That it brings all social science into disrepute. It makes social science no different to
journalism.
This issue has been widely and hotly debated. The following references are useful:
Dingwall, R. (1980) Ethics and ethnography Sociological Review 28,4: 871-891.
Homan, R. & Bulmer, M. (1982) On the merits of covert methods: a dialogue. In Bulmer, M.
(ed) Social Research Ethics Macmillan Press: London.
Herrera, C. (1999) Two arguments for ‘covert methods’ in social research British Journal of
Sociology 5,2: 331-343.
Homan, R. (1991) The Ethics of Social Research Longman: London.
Homan, R. (1992) The ethics of open methods. British Journal of Sociology 43: 321-332.
Punch, M. (1985) The Politics and Ethics of Fieldwork. Sage: London
Punch, M. (1998) Politics and ethics in qualitative research. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y.
(eds) The Landscape of Qualitative Research Sage: London.
2. Ethical regulation versus situational ethics
There are a number of different approaches to research ethics. In medical and health related
research, either consequentialist or principle-based (or rule-based) approaches tend to be used
in which ethical decisions are made either on the basis of the consequences or outcomes of
research participation or on the basis of principles such as autonomy, non-maleficence,
beneficience and justice (see Beauchamp & Childress, 2001). Social researchers have argued
that these approaches do not necessarily translate well to social research, partly because the
ethical dilemmas that arise in social research are context-specific. There is widespread
debate about the basis for ethical decision making in social research, these include a
commitment to participants’ rights (e.g., the protection of privacy); a commitment to
‘respect’ for participants; a commitment to knowledge (or the right for others to know e.g.,
how specific organisations operate); a commitment to the promotion of respect for social
science (e.g., to avoid ‘spoiling the field’); and, protecting the researcher (e.g. from
litigation). Elements of all these approaches are enshrined in the guidelines that social
researchers work to such as those produced by the Social Research Association (www.the-
sra.org.uk/Ethicals.htm) and the British Sociological Association
(www.britsoc.co.uk/library/ethicsguidelines2002.doc). However, these guidelines are
intentionally vague and leave researchers able to interpret them in ways that fit the needs of
the specific research they are undertaking. This allows social researchers to adopt a
‘situational relativist’ approach in which ethical decisions are made on the basis of issues
applicable to individual research projects.
The increasing regulation and governance of research has resulted in social research being
increasingly subject to ethical review. Universities have begun to set up ethics committees to
review research proposals and grant giving bodies are increasingly expecting that
applications submitted to them have been through a process of ethical review. A framework
for the evaluation of social research ethics has been developed (see
http://www.york.ac.uk/res/ref/index.htm). Some concern has been raised by researchers with
regard to this who fear increasing ethical review will circumscribe their ability to make their
own decisions about ethical issues relating to their specific projects.
The following references explore these issues (see also the references relating to covert
research above):
Beauchamp, T. & Childress, J. (2001) Principles of Biomedical Ethics Oxford University
Press: Oxford.
Goodwin, D., Pope, C., Mort, M. & Smith, A. (2003) Ethics and ethnography: an experiential
account Qualitative Health Research 13,4: 567-577.
Punch, M. (1998) Politics and ethics in qualitative research. In Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y.
(eds) The Landscape of Qualitative Research Sage: London.
Small, R. (2001) Codes are not enough: what philosophy can contribute to the ethics of
educational research Journal of Philosophy of Education 35 (3): 387-406.
Tinker, A. & Coomber, V. University Research Ethics Committees: Their Role, Remit and
Conduct Kings College, London.
Williamson, E., Kent, J., Goodenough, T. & Ashcroft, R. (2002) Social science gets the ethics
treatment Sociological Research Online 7,4
www.socresonline.org.uk/7/4/williamson.html
3. Anonymity versus identifying participants
Anonymity of research participants is a central feature of ethical research practice which is
written into the various guidelines to which that social researchers work (e.g.,
www.britsoc.co.uk/library/ethicsguidelines2002.doc). Additionally, the Data Protection Act
(1998) provides the legal framework for anonymisation of data. While complete anonymity
may be difficult to achieve, it is recommended that all identifying data are removed prior to
publication and, where an individual may be identifiable, explicit consent must be obtained
before publication can proceed. In social research participants and locations are generally
given pseudonyms in order to conceal identities. These are generally chosen by the
researcher, but are sometimes suggested by participants.
The arguments for anonymity are:
That negative consequences may result if study participants are identified in a study
report or publication.
That participants will be wary of the information that they provide if they are
concerned that they may not be identified.
The legal framework of the data protection act and the regulations and guidelines of
ethics committees and research organisations view anonymisation as good ethical
practice.
However, some researchers have questioned the assumption that participants always want to
be anonymised. Researchers conducting research with children have found that children
often want their own names to be used. Similarly, it has been noted by researchers working
in palliative care research that participants want their own, and their relatives’ real names to
be used. It has been suggested that researchers might offer participants:
A choice of pseudonym
The opportunity to use their own names and the names of their relatives
The opportunity to look at material to be published so they can check they are happy
with the decision they have made in relation to anonymity
However, it is noted that there are some practical problems with this:
In cases where an institution that might want to retain secrecy is involved it may not
be possible to enable participants to opt for identification – at least not without the
consent of the institution.
Enabling people to change the way they are identified in a study publication once it
has been written can be a time consuming process. It is advantageous to decide on
this at the outset but participants may change their views once they see something
ready to be published.
Allowing people to select their own pseudonym can be problematic as there may be
more than one person choosing the same name.
These issues are discussed at greater length in:
Grinyer, A. (2002) The anonymity of research participants: assumptions, ethics and
practicalities Social Research Update issue 36, University of Surrey.
4. Informed consent and competence: research with ‘vulnerable’ groups
There is considerable concern about consent issues in relation to groups perceived as
‘vulnerable’, i.e., where individuals have difficulties in giving initial and continued informed
consent because of issues of ‘competence’. Groups who are perceived as vulnerable include
children and young people, people with mental health problems and people with learning
disability. Ethics Committees generally ask that special consideration is given to the ways in
which ‘vulnerable groups’ are accessed and give consent to participate in research to ensure
that they understand what participation involves and are not coerced into taking part. The
expectation is generally that the researcher should justify the importance of the research and
the need to include ‘vulnerable’ populations and should identify the means whereby informed
consent will be obtained – in many cases there will be an expectation that proxy consent
(from a parent or relative) may be used to supplement the consent or assent from the
individual who is not seen as competent to give consent in their own right.
Some social researchers have argued strongly against the definition of such groups as
‘vulnerable’ and ‘incompetent’ and have noted that it is unethical to exclude people from
research on this basis. Researchers have argued, particularly in the area of childhood
research, that perceiving groups as vulnerable has had a negative impact on the focus of
research and the ways in which it is conducted. It has been argued that the onus is on
researchers to find ways of obtaining consent from individuals that is meaningful to them,
regardless of their abilities. This means identifying ways to explain the purpose and nature of
the research clearly and unambiguously, which may involve using a range of media, and
identifying ways in which individuals can indicate their wish to discontinue participating,
which is likely to involve becoming familiar with the ways in which individuals convey
assent and dissent. In relation to both of these points the ways in which this can be achieved
is likely to be different for different groups and individuals. Researchers need to be sensitive
to the needs of the specific groups, and the individuals within their sample, in achieving this.
Many researchers would argue that it is inappropriate to define vulnerability as relating to a
specific condition or age. There is no legal framework underpinning research practice
although the Research Governance Framework (Department of Health 2001) has attempted to
bring together various guidelines and statutes to provide a coherent context for health
research. In law, children are generally seen as not competent to make decisions (in various
areas of life) until the age of 16, although this has been challenged through the legal
distinction of Gillick-competent children (i.e., children who have sufficient understanding to
enable them to understand what is proposed). Institutional gatekeepers tend to request
parental consent for children or young people to participate in research. However, if a
researcher has not sought parental consent, a researcher is not at risk of legal proceedings
brought by parents, but they would be if a claim of harm was made by the child. Similarly
there is no legal framework relating to research with people with mental health problems or
learning disability but, as with children, gatekeepers have considerable impact on the process
of access. Gatekeepers have a significant impact on the ways in which participants are
recruited to a study and the extent and ways in which they are able to give their consent.
The following references explore some of these issues:
Alderson, P. & Morrow, V. (2003) Ethics, Social Research and Consulting with Children and
Young People Ilford: Barnardos
David, M., Edwards, R. & Aldred, P. (2001) Children and school-based research: ‘informed
consent’ or ‘educated consent’? British Educational Research Journal 27, 3: 347-365.
Masson, J. (2004) The legal context. In Fraser, S., Lewis, V., Ding, S., Kellett, M. &
Robinson, C. (eds.) Doing Research with Children and Young People London: Sage.
Rodgers, J. (1999) Trying to get it right: undertaking research involving people with learning
difficulties Disability and Society 14, 4: 1-33.
5. Consent as a process (including consent for the way that data is used)
A number of researchers have argued that, in qualitative research, consent should not be a
one-off process but should be ongoing throughout a project (known as ‘process consent’).
The reasons for this are that the specific focus and outcomes of a research study, and perhaps
even the phases of data collection, are often not known at the start of a qualitative study
whose design is generally emergent. So, for example, at the outset of a study, a general
research focus or set of questions may have been designed but the number of study
participants, the number of interviews to be carried out with each individual and the specific
direction of the research is often dependent on the data collected and the emerging analysis.
This is particularly the case for ethnographic research. To get consent from people to
participate at the beginning of a study is viewed as inappropriate because people can not
know to what they are consenting.
It has been argued that researchers should seek consent each time they collect data from a
study participant to ensure that they are aware that data are being collected and that they are
willing to continue participating in the study. However, the process whereby this can be
achieved may be difficult. Should participants be asked to sign a consent form each time data
are collected or should verbal consent be adequate? Either way there is the risk that
participants might get fed up with being repeatedly asked if they want to continue to
participate. How can researchers be sure that people understand when research is being
conducted?
A second issue, related to this, involves gaining consent for the use of data. One way of
managing this is to send transcripts of interviews to research participants to ensure they
consent for the contents of their interview to be used in the study. This may mean that
participants want to amend the interview transcript if they are not happy with it.
Additionally, some researchers view it as appropriate to seek consent for the ways that data
collected are used by, for example, asking study participants’ approval for the way their data
are presented in reports, publications and presentation. (see the discussion on anonymity
above regarding consent for the use of pseudonyms or actual names). This has a number of
implications in relation to data ownership. Should participants be able to veto the way data
are interpreted? Should it be the case that only research that has the agreement of research
participants be published? What impact will this have on the nature of the research
endeavour and the nature of critical social science? Clearly the ways in which researchers
respond to these issues will be dependent on the type of research approach adopted and the
study aims – those working in a participatory paradigm or using an action research approach
are likely to adopt these types of procedures.
Useful references:
Cutliffe, J. & Ramcharan, P. (2002) Levelling the playing field? Exploring the merits of the
ethics-as-process approach for judging qualitative research proposals Qualitative Health
Research 12, 7: 1000-1010.
Lawton, J. (2001) Gaining and maintaining consent: ethical concerns raised in a study of
dying patients Qualitative Health Research 11,5: 693-705.
Miller, T. & Bell, L. Consenting to what? Issues of access, gate-keeping and ‘informed’
consent. In Mauthner, M., Birch, M., Jessop, J. & Miller, T. (2002) Ethics in Qualitative
Research London: Sage.
Ramcharan, P. & Cutliffe, J. (2001) Judging the ethics of qualitative research: considering the
‘ethics as process’ model Health and Social Care in the Community 9,6: 358-366.
Williamson, G. & Prosser, S. (2002) Action research: politics, ethics and participation
Journal of Advanced Nursing 40, 5: 587-593.
6. Signed consent
The increased bureaucratisation of research resulting from the broad changes taking place in
research governance and regulation has meant that social researchers are increasingly having
to have their research projects assessed by Ethics Committees, be these located in health,
social care or university settings. One of the results of this increasing bureaucratisation has
been the expectation that researchers will gain signed consent from research participants.
The reasons for using signed consent forms are:
To ensure that participants understand what participation will involve and their rights
in relation to participation and issues of confidentiality and anonymity
To protect the researcher from later accusations from study participants
It has been noted that the use of signed consent forms are not appropriate in all types of
research in that they may compromise issues of confidentiality and anonymity. The
objections to signed consent forms have been raised particularly by researchers working in
the area of crime or illegal activities (such as drug-taking). These researchers argue:
Individuals committing acts of illegality should not be asked to sign consent forms as
this may open them up to potential investigation and prosecution by the criminal
justice system
Individuals may want to protect their identities from the researcher and expecting
them to divulge it runs counter to other ethical principles
Individuals involved in illegal activities who are asked to sign consent forms are
unlikely to want to participate in research
Individuals involved in illegal activities who do sign a consent form are likely to give
a false name, thereby making the process meaningless
Signed consent forms are not in the interests of researchers as they may force them to
be complicit in the prosecution of research participants. This would contravene
researchers’ responsibility to their participants.
For a fuller discussion of these issues see:
Coomber, R. (2002) Signing your life away?: Why Research Ethics Committees (REC)
shouldn’t always require written confirmation that participants in research have been
informed of the aims of a study and their rights – the case of criminal populations.
Sociological Research Online 7,1
www.socresonline.org.uk/7/1/coomber.html
7. Archiving of data
There is an increasing trend towards the archiving of qualitative data. The Qualidata archive
is a specialist service of the Economic and Social Data Service at the University of Essex,
UK. The Centre locates and acquires qualitative data with the aim of improving access of
qualitative data for researchers. There is considerable support for the archiving of qualitative
data to enable its use by other researchers. Archiving material has a number of advantages:
It enables researchers to check whether similar studies have been conducted before
and to use these to inform applications for funding
It can help funding organisations to ensure that they are not funding research that has
already been conducted
It can augment data collected in other studies – by, e.g., enabling historical
comparisons or expanding the sample size
It enables secondary analysis of existing data
It provides datasets that can be used for teaching
However, many researchers are resistant to the notion of archiving their data. The main areas
of concern appear to be:
That archiving goes against promises of confidentiality that the researcher has given
participants
Doubts about the usefulness of the research to secondary researchers because of the
contextual nature of the data
The researcher wishes to continue to use the material and not to have it further
analysed until they have completed this themselves
The researcher has concerns about exposing their research methods and interpretation
to others.
The researcher has concerns about copyright and ownership of research material
The time involved in preparing the material for archiving
Staff at the Qualidata archive have addressed these issues with the aim of encouraging
researchers to archive their data.
The following references are useful:
Corti, L., Foster, J. & Thompson, P. (1995) Archiving qualitative research data Social
Research Update Issue 10, Department of Sociology, University of Surrey
Richardson, J. & Godfrey, B. (2003) Towards ethical practice in the use of archived
transcripted interviews International Journal of Social Research Methodology 6,4: 347-355.
Thompson, P. (2003) Towards ethical practice in the use of archived transcripted interviews:
a response International Journal of Social Research Methodology 6,4: 357-360.